I don’t know about you, but I have an online presence everywhere – Google+, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Youtube, Pandora, Blogs, Spotify, a Myspace I can’t delete, and more. Corporations and non-profits like the Ad Council aren’t so different. With all these different ways to use the Internet and, more importantly, represent yourself, it’s becoming harder to maintain a consistent brand image. But with this increased difficulty in keeping a brand’s message consistent across multiple, varied platforms comes the potential to exploit the opportunity for a much stronger brand. Some brands think that they should use every social platform the same way. If a Facebook post says, “Product X launches today!” so will their tweet and Google+ post (once G+ allows brands that is). This isn’t the kind of brand consistency I’m talking about. That’s just lazy. Do you want to have a lazy brand? Didn’t think so. Rather, brands need to have innovative ways exploit the very best of each platform. If they all did the same thing there wouldn’t be a need to have more than one. Despite their similarities, social platforms have definitive strengths and weaknesses. Facebook, for instance, is amazing with contests thanks to their support of widgets. Twitter, on the other hand, may be a much better place for engaging people or addressing concerns. When Google+ allows corporate pages, Hangouts (video conferences between up to 10 people) will challenges brands to engage their customers face-to-face – a first for social media. Capitalizing on these innate advantages will only help to round out a brand, not fragment it. For instance, a consumer who doesn’t like the way Facebook works isn’t going to follow that brand on twitter if they treat it like Facebook. But they will follow it if it uses Twitter “the right way.” (more…)